borjastick wrote:These days whenever I discuss the holocaust face to face with someone I try to first clarify what they mean by the word 'holocaust'.
To me the holocaust as claimed was the deliberate destruction by mass murder of the jews in europe in very few, known locations, in a specific action over a very short period of time. Therefore the evidence to prove that series of precise events should be both plentiful and easy to see.
I then ask people if they believe it is possible to cremate millions of people in a short space of time in one or two camps and then make all their remains disappear, for good.
Then if they get stuck in to the detail a bit I ask them if they think it possible to gas 800,000 plus people in Treblinka, bury them, then dig them up some months later burn them all in open air pits, without the necessary fuel resource, so that no cremains are found.
That usually sorts them out.
So yes it is very possible to both identify the events and deny them due to a complete lack of credible and large evidence.
Letting them answer the questions is the right technique. I asked people, if they can name ONE Jew with evidence that he has been gassed in Auschwitz.
Some of the arguments are no brainers, while others are a bit more complex and require extensive background knowledge. Remember that the narrative is believed based on pictures from the Western camps taken in 1995.
Half an hour is not going to convince believers, but is sufficient to shatter foundations of their belief.